Laserfiche WebLink
(I~ Has the Applicant provided a statement identifying which permits, licenses, and <br />approvals it will seek to conduct the proposed mining and reclamation operations? <br />Specifically at issue is the Gilpin County Special Use Review (SUR) Permit. <br />Two other county permits of concern were identified at the Pre-hearing <br />conference, the Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit and the Grading <br />Permit for roads. (Rule 6.4.13- Exhibit M.) <br />8. Issue 7(A): Pre-Mining and Mining Plan Maps, Rule 6.4.3(b). As stated in the <br />Division's "Rationale for Recommendation of Approval" ("Rationale"), the Applicant <br />provided revised maps C-1, C-2A, C-2B and C-2C, which accurately show the location of <br />the quarry entrance and the location of all permanent man-made structures within 200 <br />feet of the quarry entrance. <br />9. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has met the minimum <br />requirements of Rule 6.4.3(b). <br />10. Issue 7(B): Blast Vibration Analysis and Blasting Plan, Rule 6.4.4(i) and 6.5(4). As <br />described in the Division's Rationale, the Applicant provided a detailed blast analysis <br />prepazed by Lyman Henn, Ina ("Henn Blasting Report"). The Henn Blasting Report <br />provides an assessment of possible surface and subsurface impacts and a monitoring plan <br />to detect the presence or absence of offsite impacts. The Henn Blasting Report also <br />proposes mitigation measures that will be implemented in the event a peak particle <br />velocity of 0.75 inches per second is detected in any structure not owned or controlled by <br />the Applicant or a peak particle velocity of 0.50 inches per second is detected at any older <br />structure with plaster-on-lath walls that are within the zone of influence of quarry blast <br />ground vibrations. The blasting plan ensures that adverse impacts will not occur to the <br />MMRR Board Order, M-2004-067 <br />